Barnes v R [2014] NSWCCA 224

Barnes v R [2014] NSWCCA 224

The sentencing judge did not err in making the manslaughter sentence wholly cumulative on the revoked parole period. The judge expressly considered totality, treated the armed robbery and manslaughter as discrete and independent criminality, and it was open to conclude that partial concurrency would not adequately reflect either offence. The applicant identified no specific error and did not establish House v King error. The special circumstances adjustment was also adequate because the judge fixed five years as the minimum custody required for the manslaughter offence and adjusted the ratio so that the combined revoked parole period and manslaughter sentence maintained the statutory ratio.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'revocation of Parole' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'double Punishment']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['manslaughter' 'revocation of Parole' 'concurrency and Accumulation of Sentences' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'double Punishment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing the commencement date of the manslaughter sentence on 6 December 2011 rather than an earlier date during the revoked parole period.' 'Whether imposing the manslaughter sentence wholly cumulatively on the revoked parole period gave the appearance of double punishment after treating commission of the offence while on parole as an aggravating factor.' 'Whether the reduction in the non-parole period following a finding of special circumstances was inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge did not err in making the manslaughter sentence wholly cumulative on the revoked parole period. The judge expressly considered totality, treated the armed robbery and manslaughter as discrete and independent criminality, and it was open to conclude that partial concurrency would not adequately reflect either offence. The applicant identified no specific error and did not establish House v King error. The special circumstances adjustment was also adequate because the judge fixed five years as the minimum custody required for the manslaughter offence and adjusted the ratio so that the combined revoked parole period and manslaughter sentence maintained the statutory ratio.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']